Smith, Eaglesfield, Rudigar the Tranflations, Georgics, Deare's

THE

BRITISH CRITIC,

For JULY, 1809.

"Quantum literis, quantum ftudiis, veteribus noftris delecta tionibus, confequi poterimus, libentiffime conferimus."' CICERO.

Whatever literature, whatever thofe ftudies, which have al ways been our delight, can poffibly fupply, we will moft freely beftow.

ART. I. The New Teftament, in an improved Verfion upon the Bafis of Archbishop Newcome's New Tranflation: With a corrected Text and Notes, Critical and Explanatory; publifhed by a Society for the Promotion of Chriftian Knowledge, Sc. Sc. 8vo. 612 P. 8s. Johnfon. 1808.'

THIS Verfion of the New Teftament, published, as the title-page fets forth, "by a Society for promoting Chrif tian Knowledge, and the Practice of Virtue, by the Diftribu tion of Books," demands our particular confideration. If it really is fo improved a verfion as it is ftated to be; if the text is carefully corrected, as it is pretended; but above all, if the accompanying notes are properly illuftrative of the Chriflian doctrines, then not only all the members of the Established Church of thefe realms, but almoft every deno mination of diffenters from the establishment, ale extrava

B

BRIT, CRIT, VOL. XXXIV. JULY, 1809.

gantly

gantly wrong. Calvinifts, Arminians, Baptifts, Anabaptifs, Quakers, Papifts, nay, even Arians, Semi-Arians, and Socinians, all are in a grofs error; thofe only may be held to be right who are the immediate difciples of the following contemporary authorities; Dr. Priestley, Mr. Wakefield, Mr. Lindley, Mr. Evanfon, Mr. Jones, and the feveral contributors to the Theological Repofitory. For though Archbishop Newcome is held out as a fort of model in the title-page, his authority is made light of, whenever it appears to be much against thefe editors, and we are exprefsly told in a note on the first Epiftle of St. John, that nothing but the clear and difcriminating light diffufed over the .obfcurities of the facred Scriptures, by the venerable Theophilus Lindley, and his coadjutors, Jebb. Priestley, Wakefield, and others," could "purify the Chriftian Religion from thofe numerous and enormous corruptions, which have fo long disfigured its doctrines and impeded its progrefs." This is fpeaking out plainly; but it is rather a wonder that of the fe names appear in the title-page to recommend the book, while two Archbishops are felected for the purpofe; for befides the learned Primate of Ireland, a motto is adopted from Archbishop Parker's Preface to the Bishop's Bible, by way of a fecond decoy, to the unwary members of the Church; we can really not bring ourfelves to confider it in any other light.

none

In their Introduction, the Editors boaft of the encouragement they have received, from the liberal and enlightened. How much could we wish that all fuch terms might be avoided. It is thus that a noun adjective is often made to convey an argument. If thofe are the only enlight ened who fhall encourage the fale and diftribution of this edition, all criticifm is fuperfeded - we muft incur the charge of dulnefs and ignorance for merely attempting it, and certainly of illiberality for prefuming to undeceive the public. The title page contains many bold affump tions of this nature. The Verfion is declared an improved one, the Text, a corrected one, and the object of the Soeiety is ftated to be, the Promotion of Chriftian Knowledge. We are not bound to bow down to authorities, any more than the Editors themfelves, and fhall therefore freely declare, that we deny all thefe affumptions; we think the Ver hion not an improved one, the Text not by any means correct, and the knowledge it would promote, to be not truly Chriftian, We must take our chance, after this, of being expelled from the fociety of inquifitive, liberal, and judicious fcholars; of Candid and difcerning readers; of learned, acute, and even honeft

critics;

critics; of ferious and enlightened Chriftians: this we cannot help. We fhall endeavour to hold faft the form of found words, delivered to us by the facred writers, in hopes of faving both ourfelves, and thofe who will honour us with their attention.

It is not our defign, however, to enter upon a minute examination of the verfion merely as fuch, but rather to dwell upon thofe doctrines attempted to be fet afide as vulgar errors; fuch as the pre-existence and miraculous concep tion of Chrift-the divinity and perfonality of the Son and Holy Ghoft-the existence of evil spirits and angels; and the atonement by the blood of Chrift. We do not propofe to be equally diffufe on all these points, but upon fome we cannot avoid having much to fay; we fhall begin with what happens to occur the earliest in this book of God; namely, the birth of our Lord Jefus Chrift.

The accounts of the miraculous conception and birth of our Saviour have here a ftrong mark of fufpicion put upon them. The whole of the narratives from verfe 16 of the firit chapter of St. Matthew to the end of the fecond chapter, and from verfe 4 of the first chapter to the end of the fecond of St. Luke, is printed in italics," to fhew that it is of doubtful authority." The reafons for this are given in the notes at the foot of the pages. It is our duty to examine them clofely; and we fhall bring them all together, that a full view of the fubject may be taken at once. The references in these notes point out to us the fources whence the editors have deduced their arguments, and we may reafonably conclude that they have of courfe felected the frongeft proofs in vindication. of their own fufpicions. The firft note on St. Matthew begins by telling us, that

Epiphanius fays, that Cerinthus and Carpocrates, who used the Gospel of the Ebionites, which was probably the original Gofpel of St. Matthew, written in the Hebrew language for the ufe of the Jewish believers, argued from the genealogy at the beginning of the Gospel, that Chrift was the fon of Jofeph and Mary: but that the Ebionites had taken away even the genealogy, beginning the Gofpel with these words, And it came to pals in the days of Herod the king, &c.' "It is probable therefore," fay the Editors, "that the first fixteen verfes of this chapter are genuine, and that they were found at leaft in the copies of Cerinthus and Carpocrates. And, indeed, it can hardly be fuppofed that an author writing for the inftruction' of Hebrew Chritians, would have omitted to trace the defcent of Chrift from Abraham and David, upon which they juftly laid so great a ftrefs.”

B 2

Here